Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-Operative Society Ltd & anor v Bradley & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

Company A obtained exclusive aquaculture and foreshore licences in The Location on 20 October 1994 for oyster and mussel cultivation. The licences expired on 19 October 2004, but Company A applied for renewal. Section 19A(4) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, inserted by s. 101 of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, allowed operations to continue pending renewal decisions.

Beginning in September 2006, the Defendants/Appellants—traditional shell-fishers—entered the licensed area and removed oysters, claiming entitlement to harvest native oysters and disputing the validity of the Plaintiffs’ title. Plaintiffs/Respondents (Company A and Company B) obtained an interlocutory injunction, later pursued a permanent injunction, and sought damages.

In May 2009 Judge O’Donnell found the Defendants liable in trespass, granted injunctive relief, and awarded €25,000 damages. A constitutional challenge to s. 19A(4) was dismissed in June 2010. No timely appeal was brought. In February 2011, after advice received at a seminar, the Defendants tried to reopen matters, ultimately filing a late notice of appeal in June 2011. The sole ground became a statutory-construction argument that s. 19A had never been commenced.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether s. 19A of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, inserted by s. 101 of the 2006 Act, required a separate commencement order before it could take legal effect.
2. Whether, given the procedural history, the Appellants should be permitted an extension of time and leave to argue a point not raised in the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Section 1(3) of the 1997 Act mandates commencement orders for any provision; because no order specifically commenced the newly inserted s. 19A, that section never took effect.
• Without a valid statutory extension of the licences, the Plaintiffs lacked title and no trespass could have occurred.
• The High Court decision of May 2009 was per incuriam for overlooking this statutory point, justifying appellate review despite delay.

Respondents' Arguments

• The appeal was grossly out of time and failed to satisfy criteria for an extension.
• The statutory-construction point was never argued below; under established Supreme Court practice (e.g., Movie News, K.D.) new points should not be entertained on appeal absent exceptional circumstances.
• Substantively, Article 25.4.1 of the Constitution, together with ordinary rules of interpretation, means s. 19A came into force automatically upon enactment of the 2006 Act; no separate commencement order was necessary.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge O’Donnell, delivering the unanimous judgment, first noted the tangled procedural history but agreed to address the statutory-construction point because it was of general importance and all parties desired clarity.

The Court held that Article 25.4.1 of the Constitution creates a presumption that legislation comes into force on the day of presidential signature unless the Oireachtas clearly provides otherwise. Section 101 of the 2006 Act contained no deferred-commencement clause; therefore, when that Act became law, the newly inserted s. 19A simultaneously came into operation. The Appellants’ argument that a “double-commencement” was necessary was dismissed as “pointless pedantry.” Comparative examples from planning legislation and foreign case law (Montague Burton, Fagan) reinforced that amendments take effect immediately unless expressly delayed.

Procedurally, the Court ruled that the notice of appeal was out of time. The attempt to revive the case by amending the High Court order did not reset the appellate clock, and the Appellants failed to satisfy the criteria in Inter Continental Trading for an extension. Even if time were extended, longstanding Supreme Court practice would generally bar a party from raising for the first time on appeal an issue not argued below; the present case did not present exceptional circumstances justifying departure from that rule.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

The Supreme Court confirmed that an amending Act can immediately bring the inserted provision into force without a separate commencement order under the parent statute. The Plaintiffs’ title therefore remained valid, the injunction stands, and the damages award is unaffected. While the decision resolves uncertainty surrounding s. 19A and similar amendments, it sets no new constitutional principle; it clarifies statutory-commencement practice and underscores strict adherence to appellate time limits.